Pondering partisanship...

Like the heading of this blog, adapted from a famous Sam Rayburn quotation, says, I'm a Democrat, without prefix, without suffix, without apology. That doesn't mean beyond description, though. I'm from the liberal wing of the party, and a bit beyond that on some issues. Because of that, I generally share the frustration about Democrats like, say, Joe Lieberman. As I've said elsewhere, I'd support a decently liberal primary alternative to Lieberman, but if that were unsuccessful, I'd still rather have Lieberman, however diminutive the 'D' after his name seem to be sometimes, than anyone designated by an 'R.'

That's why I hope this snippet from a Daily Kos proves true...

Some lawmakers and senior party aides say that Mr. Lieberman remains in good standing. But they say that could change if he broke ranks and gave Mr. Bush a prominent Democratic ally on Social Security. "I think that Joe understands that, at this point in time, unity is the most important card Democrats have to play," said one Democratic senator, who like others, would only speak about Mr. Lieberman without being identified because of the sensitivity of his position. "He is sympathetic enough to that need that he is not going to bolt the reservation."

Let's face it, if Bush can't move Lieberman then the Bushco campaign to destroy Social Security really is DOA. I also take some encouragement from the statement by the Democratic Senator that "...unity is the most important card Democrats have to play." That's consistent with the general tone that's been set by Harry Reid, especially on the Social Security issue. It addresses the bottom line in an issue that will always plague the Democratic Party, which has a real committment to maintaining a 'big tent' policy. You really can't draw the kind of hard ideological lines that typify Republican discipline in the Democratic Caucus. The ideological range is simply too broad. Nope, sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and vote with your Party as a matter of loyalty and integrity that transcends ideology. Not often, and not lightly, but sometimes you just gotta.

The Social Security issue brings us to just such a time. In a way, it's a gift. Clearly the bankruptcy issue isn't strong enough to hold the Caucus. There's just too much home interest for some, like Joe Biden, and once the ranks break, subsequent defectors have cover. The attack on the rights of citizens to get compensation for injuries is another big piece of the Bushco agenda that it's hard to get real consencus on. Of course, on thing common to both issues is the tendency for the folks back home to think that those things always happen to someone else, so there's more pressure from K Street than Main Street brought to bear.

Not so Social Security. It has an unmatchable universality. You're on it, or expect to be. Your folks, maybe, or your maiden aunt, or that nice lady next door with the beautiful garden. They're on it. We're all in the plan. It's also got a terrific emotional advantage among Democratic partisans, since the destruction of Social Security, the ultimate pride of the New Deal, the greatest legacy of one of our greatest partisan icons, would be an enormous symbolic blow to Democrats of every ideological stripe. Heck, even the Republicans invoke FDR with a regularity I find offensive, since he's ours, dammit, and they've just got no right.

So it's a good place to take a stand, and it's appropriate to hold every Democrat to an exacting standard on it. It behooves us, though, to show some degree of forbearance when some D's stray on issues that are near and dear to those of us on the leftish edge of the Party. Once we had majorities large enough to tolerate deviance and still enact Democratic programs. A tradition of tolerance for that deviance established the proverbial 'big tent.' As that became the norm in the Congress, it became enshrined as a principle in Democratic politics. It is, I think a good principle, but sometimes it's complicated. Now we have a minority so slight that a unified front by our Democratic Senate can rescue the nation from the worst excesses of the radical Republicans. But our priniciple of tolerance within our own ranks means that a unified front can only be achieved in, at best, a very few instances, and we just have to...ahem...tolerate that.

Ezra Klein hits a key point in a post about the role and future of the DLC...

"...it's fine to consider the DLC's role reduced and their chairman irritating, but I wouldn't wish them out of the party, particularly not when we're out of the majority. They need to have a place at the table so their ideological soulmates feel that they've got a role in the talks and a stake in the outcome. If we kick them out of the room, it's all the easier for them walk across the aisle."

And that's it, really. The Senate Democrats are in the minority, and the first responsiblity of a minority isn't to slake the ideological thirst of the netroots - it's to become a majority. Sometimes that means accomodating differences between ourselves and some of our elected leaders. Sometimes that's not going to make me very happy, but sometimes being a Democrat means just dealing with it and leaving attacks on deviant Democrats to the GOP hit squads.

Just part of being proudly partisan...